An Introduction to the Anarchist Movement
- by Brian Crabtree -
Anti-Copyright 1993:
This work may be freely reproduced, by any means, in
whole or in part, but may not be copyrighted by
any other individual or corporate entity.
Contents:
1. Introduction
2. Anarchist Principles
2.1 Anarchist Ideals
3. Anarchist Society
3.1 A Model of an Anarchist Community?
3.2 Technology and Anarchy
4. The Case For Anarchism
4.1 The Problem Exists
4.2 The Problem Is Inherent
4.3 Anarchy Will Solve the Problem
5. The History of Anarchism
5.1 Proudhon and the Mutualists
5.2 Bakunin and Collectivism
5.3 Peter Kropotkin
5.4 The Anarchist Movement
6. Anarchy As a Way of Life
6.1 Civil Disobedience
6.2 D-I-Y
7. Modern Anarchist Activism
7.1 Direct Action
7.2 Propaganda
7.3 Anarchist Networking
7.31 The Zine Network
7.32 Electronic Networking
8. Conclusion
9. Appendices: Getting Connected
9.1 Anarchist Periodicals
9.2 Anarchist Organizations
9.3 Anarchist Publishing and Distribution
9.4 Anarchist Electronic Contacts
9.5 Sources For Further Information About Anarchism
9.6 Contacting the Author
~ Introduction ~
What comes to mind when you hear the word "anarchy"? Chaos and
disorder? Bomb throwers and assassins? Wearing black clothes and combat
boots? None of these popular conceptions adequately describes anarchism or the
anarchist movement.
Over the years, there have probably been more nonsense and
misconceptions about anarchism than about any other political theory or
ideology. To this very day, if you look up "anarchism" in the Reader's Guide
to Periodical Literature, you will be told to "See also: Terrorism". Anarchism
is not terrorism, nor is it a fad or style of dress, nor is it necessarily
chaotic or violent. Anarchy is a viable system of non-hierarchical
organization - a method of voluntary human interaction. The words "anarchy",
"anarchism", and "anarchist" should be used to refer to this, not to be used as
a catch-all term for "people and ideas that the government doesn't like".
Dissenters have always been persecuted by the majority. In this book I
will attempt to resolve some of the fears, misconceptions, and outright lies
that have been propagated about anarchism. This is in no way an attempt to
speak for all anarchists. It has been said that there as many definitions of
anarchy as there are anarchists, and I want this book to reflect that. As you
read this, be careful not to fall into the trap of classifying people with
labels. Everyone has their own ideas and morals, and will behave differently.
The purpose of this book is to promote a better understanding of anarchism.
~ Anarchist Principles ~
Government is an evil and unnecessary institution. The utilization of
government as a control device for the population of an area is immoral and
inefficient. Anarchy is the alternative to this artificially imposed order.
Anarchists envision a libertarian and egalitarian society in which
participation is voluntary and mutual aid replaces coercion as the binding
force between individuals. Everyone must be allowed to judge for themselves
wwhat is right and wrong, and act according to reason and ethics instead of
laws and pre-packaged morality. Whose ethics? Each person's conscience. My
ethics are: If what you do infringes the rights of someone else, then it is
wrong. Anything else is acceptable.
Some anarchists believe that anarchy is not disorderly - that it is a
much more complex form of organization than the simple hierarchical structure
imposed on us by government. Still others view organization as just another
tool used my the state to control us.
- Anarchist Ideals -
Liberty. Freedom. Freedom of conscience, or as Thomas Jefferson said
it, the right to "the persuit of happiness", is said to be the basis for all
other freedoms; freedom is the highest ideal of anarchists. With liberty comes
equality. Liberty does not truly exist unless it exists for everyone,
regardless of race, age, gender, sexual preference, or ideology. All people
are born equal, it is existing society that forces us into groups and classes.
Government takes away rights. If it did any less it would not be
government. Our government takes away our right to bear arms, our right to
persue happiness in whatever form we find it, our freedom of expression, and
our freedom to choose what is best for ourselves. Government takes away our
liberty. Government also denies us equality, another fundamental freedom, by
separating us into classes and discouraging interaction between the classes.
If you are born into a poor family, you will probably stay poor; if you are
born into a rich family, you will probably be no worse off than your parents.
The rich stay in control, and the workers continue to sell their lives to the
system.
Government also prevents free association by placing arbitrary
political barriers between members of different countries as well
as economic barriers between members of the same country. Militarism is a
tragic example of the barriers between countries. If countries would spend as
much effort trying to get along with each other as they spend trying to keep
their own affairs in order, there would be much less war. There would also be
less war if we settled disagreements between countries by putting the leaders
of the countries in the ring and let them fight it out themselves. I'm sure
all of us would agree that that method of war is absolutely absurd, but this is
almost exactly what we are doing by fighting wars in the first place. Brute
strength is no way to settle an argument. By what logic is the more powerful
country correct? More often than not, the citizens of one country have no
grudge against the citizens of the opposing country, but their governments turn
them against each other with propaganda and lies. Soldiers don't stop to think
that they are actually taking a human life. If every soldier in the world woke
up one morning and decided that how many people one has killed is not really
the best way to keep score, we'd all be a lot better off.
~ Anarchist Society ~
There are many differing points of view concerning how an anarchist
society should be organized, including communist anarchy, collectivist anarchy,
Proudhon's anarchy (which consisted of a federal system of autonomous
villages), and even capitalist anarchy (an oxymoron in itself).
In a communist anarchy, all property is owned by everyone. Theft is
therefore eliminated because everyone owns everything; everyone shares common
property.
Some anarchists criticize all order and restraint, and that all
interaction is good because good and evil are arbitrarily defined. Ontological
anarchists believe that chaos is the solution - that the hidden order inherent
in human interaction will emerge when artificial barriers are completely
eliminated.
I feel that the most probable and the most truly anarchic of all the
systems is individualist anarchy. Individualist anarchists often criticize the
tendency to place people into groups, such as blacks, whites, women, men,
anarchist, feminists, homosexuals, etc., and expecting that all of the members
of a defined group will think or behave in the same way. In fact, everyone is
unique and no system will be right for everyone. In an individualist anarchy,
people can form whatever kind of community suits them best. An anarchy in
which every community was identical would be almost as coercive as majority
rule.
- A Model of an Anarchist Community? -
There is no set model of an anarchist community. In an individualist
anarchy, there could be many different systems. If you ask most anarchists,
however, they will reply with words like "mutual aid" and "voluntary
association". The idea is that people should work with each other instead of
for each other, and that an anarchist society would be organized in a more
complex way than modern society. Instead of some people being leaders and
others followers, people cooperate. Attempts to model anarchist communities
before-the-fact cannot be only theoretical, so I will instead answer some
questions about an anarchist society which will help to define what an
anarchist society could be. The following is taken from Objections to
Anarchism, by George Barrett, which appeares in The Raven (#12), an anarchist
journal published by Freedom Press in London. Freedom Press can be reached at
84B Whitechapel High Street, London E1 7QX.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1. What will you do with the man who will not work?
First of all, let us notice that this question belongs to a class to which
many others belong. All social theories must obviously be based on the
assumption that men are social: that is, that they will live and work
together naturally, because by so doing they can individually better enjoy
their lives. Therefore all such difficulties, which are really based on the
supposition that men are not social, can be raised not against anarchism
alone, but against any system of society that one chooses to suggest.
Questions 11, 12, 13 and 15 belong to this class, which are merely
based on supposition. My opponents will realise how futile they are if I
use a similar kind of argument against their system of government. Suppose,
I argue, that having sent your representatives into the House of Commons
they will not sit down and legislate but that they will just play the fool,
or, perhaps, vote themselves comfortable incomes, instead of looking after
your welfare. It will be answered to this that they are sent there to
legislate, and that in all human probability they will do so. Quite so; but
we may still say 'Yes, but suppose they don't?' and whatever arguments are
brought forward in favour of government they can always, by simply
supposing, be rendered quite useless, since those who oppose us would never
be able to actually guarantee that our governors would govern. Such an
argument would be absurd, it is quite true; for though it may happen that
occasionally legislators will sit down and vote themselves incomes instead
of attending to the affairs of the nation, yet we could not use this as a
logical argument against the government system.
Similarly, when we are putting forward our ideas of free
co-operation of anarchism, it is not good enough to argue, 'Yes, but
suppose your co-operators will not co-operate?' for that is what questions
of this class amount to.
It is because we claim to be able to show that it is wrong in
principle that we, as anarchists, are against government. In the same way,
then, those who oppose anarchism ought not to do so by simply supposing
that a man will do this, or won't do that, but they ought to set themselves
to show that anarchism is in principle opposed to the welfare of mankind.
The second interesting point to notice about the question is that
it is generally asked by a Socialist. Behind the question there is
obviously the implication that he who asks it has in his mind some way of
forcing men to work. Now the most obvious of all those who will not work is
the man who is on strike, and if you have a method of dealing with the man
who will not work it simply means that you are going to organise a system
of society where the government will be so all-powerful that the rebel and
the striker will be completely crushed out. You will have a government
class dictating to a working class the conditions under which it must
labour, which is exactly what both anarchists and Socialists are supposed
to be struggling against to-day.
In a free society the man who will not work, if he should exist at
all, is at least brought on equal terms with the man who will. He is not
placed in a position of privilege so that he need not work, but on the
contrary the argument which is so often used against anarchism comes very
neatly into play here in its favour. It is often urged that it is necessary
to organise in order to live. Quite so, and for this reason the struggle
for life compels us to organise, and there is no need for any further
compulsion on the part of the government. Since to organise in society is
really to work in society, it is the law of life which constantly tends to
make men work, whilst it is the artificial laws of privilege which put men
in such a position that they need not work. Anarchism would do away with
these artificial laws, and thus it is the only system which constantly
tends to eliminate the man who will not work.
We might perhaps here quote John Stuart Mill's answer to this objection:
The objection ordinarily made to a system of community of property and
equal distribution of produce-'that each person would be incessantly
occupied in evading his share of the work'-is, I think, in general,
considerably overstated . . . Neither in a rude nor in a civilised society
has the supposed difficulty been experienced. In no community has idleness
ever been a cause of failure. [1]
...
4. It is necessary to organise in order to live, and to organise means
Government; therefore anarchism is impossible.
It is true that it is necessary to organise in order to live, and since we
all wish to live we shall all of our own free will organise, and do not
need the compulsion of government to make us do so. Organisation does not
mean government. All through our ordinary daily work we are organising
without government. If two of us lift a table from one side of the room to
the other, we naturally take hold one at each end, and we need no
government to tell us that we must not overbalance it by both rushing to
the same end; the reason why we agree silently, and organise ourselves to
the correct positions, is because we both have a common purpose: we both
wish to see the table moved. In more complex organisations the same thing
takes place. So long as organisations are held together only by a common
purpose they will automatically do their work smoothly. But when, in spite
of conflicting interests, you have people held together in a common
organisation, internal conflict results, and some outside force becomes
necessary to preserve order; you have, in fact, governmental society. It is
the anarchist's purpose to so organise society that the conflict of
interests will cease, and men will co-operate and work together simply
because they have interests in common. In such a society the organisations
or institutions which they will form will be exactly in accordance with
their needs; in fact, it will be a representative society.
Free organisation is more fully discussed in answer to Questions 5 and 23.
5. How would you regulate the traffic?
We should not regulate it. It would be left to those whose business it was
to concern themselves in the matter. It would pay those who use the roads
(and therefore had, in the main, interests in common in the matter) to come
together and discuss and make agreements as to the rules of the road. Such
rules in fact which at present exist have been established by custom and
not by law, though the law may sometimes take it on itself to enforce them.
This question we see very practically answered to-day by the great
motor clubs, which are entered voluntarily, and which study the interest of
this portion of the traffic. At dangerous or busy corners a sentry is
stationed who with a wave of the hand signals if the coast is clear, or if
it is necessary to go slowly. First-aid boxes and repair shops are
established all along the road, and arrangements are made for conveying
home motorists whose cars are broken down.
A very different section of road users, the carters, have found an
equally practical answer to the question. There are, even to-day, all kinds
of understandings and agreements amongst these men as to which goes first,
and as to the position each shall take up in the yards and buildings where
they work. Amongst the cabmen and taxi-drivers the same written and
unwritten agreements exist, which are as rigidly maintained by free
understandings as they would be by the penalties of law.
Suppose now the influence of government were withdrawn from our
drivers. Does anyone believe that the result would be chaos? Is it not
infinitely more likely that the free agreements at present existing would
extend to cover the whole necessary field? And those few useful duties now
undertaken by the government in the matter: would they not be much more
effectively carried out by free organisation among the drivers?
This question has been much more fully answered by Kropotkin in The
Conquest of Bread. In this he shows how on the canals in Holland the
traffic (so vital to the life of that nation) is controlled by free
agreements, to the perfect satisfaction of all concerned. The railways of
Europe, he points out, also, are brought into co-operation with one another
and thus welded into one system, not by a centralised administration, but
by agreements and counter-agreements between the various companies.
If free agreement is able to do so much even now, in a system of
competition and government, how much more could it do when competition
disappears, and when we trust to our own organisation instead of to that of
a paternal government.
...
7. If you abolish competition you abolish the incentive to work.
One of the strangest things about society to-day is that whilst we show a
wonderful power to produce abundant wealth and luxury, we fail to bring
forth the simplest necessities. Everyone, no matter what his political,
religious or social opinions may be, will agree in this. It is too obvious
to be disputed. On the one hand there are children without boots; on the
other hand are the boot-makers crying out that they cannot sell their
stock. On the one hand there are people starving or living upon unwholesome
food, and on the other hand provision merchants complain of bad trade. Here
are homeless men and women sleeping on the pavements and wandering nightly
through our great cities, and here again are property-owners complaining
that no one will come and live in their houses. And in all these cases
production is held up because there is no demand. Is not this an
intolerable state of affairs? What now shall we say about the incentive to
work? Is it not obvious that the present incentive is wrong and mischievous
up to the point of starvation and ruination. That which induces us to
produce silks and diamonds and dreadnoughts and toy pomeranians, whilst
bread and boots and houses are needed, is wholly and absolutely wrong.
To-day the scramble is to compete for the greatest profits. If
there is more profit to be made in satisfying my lady's passing whim than
there is in feeding hungry children, then competition brings us in feverish
haste to supply the former, whilst cold charity or the poor law can supply
the latter, or leave it unsupplied, just as it feels disposed. That is how
it works out. This is the reason: the producer and the consumer are the two
essentials; a constant flow of wealth passes from one to the other, but
between them stands the profit-maker and his competition system, and he is
able to divert that stream into what channel best pleases him. Sweep him
away and the producer and the consumer are brought into direct relationship
with one another. When he and his competitive system are gone there will
still remain the only useful incentive to work, and that will be the needs
of the people. The need for the common necessities and the highest luxuries
of life will be not only fundamental as it is to-day, but the direct motive
power behind all production and distribution. It is obvious, I think, that
this is the ideal to be aimed at, for it is only in such circumstances that
production and distribution will be carried on for its legitimate
purpose-to satisfy the needs of the people; and for no other reason.
...
9. Under anarchism the country would be invaded by a foreign enemy.
At present the country is held by that which we consider to be an enemy
-the landlord and capitalist class. If we are able to free ourselves from
this, which is well established and at home on the land, surely we should
be able to make shift against a foreign invading force of men, who are
fighting, not for their own country, but for their weekly wage.
It must be remembered, too, that anarchism is an international
movement, and if we do establish a revolution in this country, in other
countries the people would have become at least sufficiently rebellious for
their master class to consider it advisable to keep their armies at home.
...
11. If two people want the same piece of land under anarchism, how will you
settle the dispute?
First of all, it is well to notice here that Questions 11, 12 and 13 all
belong to the same class. No. 11, at least, is based upon a fallacy. If
there are two persons who want the exclusive right to the same thing, it is
quite obvious that there is no satisfactory solution to the problem. It
does not matter in the least what system of society you suggest, you cannot
possibly satisfy that position. It is exactly as if I were suggesting a new
system of mathematics, and someone asked me: 'Yes, but under this new
system suppose you want to make ten go into one hundred eleven times?' The
truth is that if you do a problem by arithmetic, or if you do it by
algebra, or trigonometry, or by any other method, the same answer must be
produced for the given problem; and just as you cannot make ten go into one
hundred more than ten times, so you cannot make more than one person have
the exclusive right to one thing. If two people want it, then at least one
must remain in want, whatever may be the form of society in which they are
living. Therefore, to begin with, we see that there cannot be a
satisfactory way of settling this trouble, for the objection has been
raised by simply supposing an unsatisfactory state of affairs.
All that we can say is that such disputes are very much better
settled without the interference of authority. If the two were reasonable,
they would probably mutually agree to allow their dispute to be settled by
some mutual friend whose judgement they could trust. But if instead of
taking this sane course they decide to set up a fixed authority, disaster
will be the inevitable result. In the first place, this authority will have
to be given power wherewith to enforce its judgement in such matters. What
will then take place? The answer is quite simple. Feeling it is a superior
force, it will naturally in each case take to itself the best of what is
disputed, and allot the rest to its friends.
What a strange question is this. It supposes that two people who
meet on terms of equality and disagree could not be reasonable or just.
But, on the other hand, it supposes that a third party, starting with an
unfair advantage, and backed up by violence, will be the incarnation of
justice itself. Commonsense should certainly warn us against such a
supposition, and if we are lacking in this commodity, then we may learn the
lesson by turning to the facts of life. There we see everywhere Authority
standing by, and in the name of justice and fair play using its organised
violence in order to take the lion's share of the world's wealth for the
governmental class.
We can only say, then, in answer to such a question, that if people
are going to be quarrelsome and constantly disagree then, of course, no
state of society will suit them, for they are unsocial animals. If they are
only occasionally so, then each case must stand on its merits and be
settled by those concerned.
...
12. Suppose one district wants to construct a railway to pass through a
neighbouring community, which opposes it. How would you settle this?
It is curious that this question is not only asked by those who support the
present system, but it is also frequently put by the Socialists. Yet surely
it implies at once the aggressive spirit of Capitalism, for is it not the
capitalist who talks of opening up the various countries of the world, and
does he not do this in the very first instance by having a war in order
that he may run his railways through, in spite of the local opposition by
the natives? Now, if you have a country in which there are various
communes, it stands to reason that the people in those communes will want
facilities for travelling, and for receiving and sending their goods. That
will not be much more true of one little community than of another. This,
then, not only implies a local railway, but a continuous railway running
from one end of the country to the other. If a certain district, then, is
going to object to have such a valuable asset given to it, it will surely
be that there is some reason for such an objection. That being so, would it
not be folly to have an authority to force that community to submit to the
railway passing through?
If this reason does not exist, we are simply supposing a society of
unreasonable people and asking how they should co-operate together. The
truth is that they could not co-operate together, and it is quite useless
to look for any state of society which will suit such a people. The
objection, therefore, need not be raised against anarchism, hut against
society itself. What would a government society propose to do? Would it
start a civil war over the matter? Would it build a prison large enough to
enclose this community, and imprison all the people for resisting the law?
In fact, what power has any authority to deal with the matter which the
anarchists have not got?
The question is childish. It is simply based on the supposition
that people are unreasonable, and if such suppositions are allowed to pass
as arguments, then any proposed state of society may be easily argued out
of existence. I must repeat that many of these questions are of this type,
and a reader with a due sense of logic will be able to see how worthless
they are, and will not need to read the particular answers I have given to
them.
13. Suppose your free people want to build a bridge across a river, but
they disagree as to position. How will you settle it?
To begin with, it is obvious, but important, to notice that it is not I,
but they, who would settle it. The way it would work out, I imagine, is
something like this:
We will call the two groups who differ A and B. Then-
1 A may be of opinion that the B scheme would be utterly useless to it,
and that the only possible position for the bridge is where it has
suggested. In which case it will say: 'Help our scheme, or don't co-operate
at all.'
2 A may be of opinion that the B scheme is useless, but, recognising
the value of B's help, it may be willing to budge a few yards, and so
effect a compromise with B.
3 A, finding it can get no help from B unless it gives way altogether, may
do so, believing that the help thus obtained is worth more than the
sacrifice of position.
These are, I think, the three courses open to A. The same three are open to
B. I will leave it to the reader to combine the two, and I think he will
find the result will be either:
1 That the bridge is built in the A position, with, we will say, the
half-hearted support of B;
or
2 The same thing, but with letters A and B reversed;
or
3 The bridge is built somewhere between, with the partial support of
both parties;
or
4 Each party pursues its own course, independent of the other.
In any case it will be seen, I hope, that the final structure will
be representative, and that, on the other hand, if one party was able to
force the other to pay for what it did not want, the result would not be
representative or just.
The usefulness of this somewhat dreary argument will be seen if it
be applied not merely to bridge-building but to all the activities of life.
By so doing we are able to imagine growing into existence a state of
society where groups of people work together so far as they agree, and work
separately when they do not. The institutions they construct will be in
accord with their wishes and needs. It will indeed be representative. How
different is this from the politician's view of things, who always wants to
force the people to co-operate in running his idea of society!
14. What would you do with the criminal?
There is an important question which should come before this, but which our
opponents never seem to care to ask. First of all, we have to decide who
are the criminals, or rather, even before this, we have to come to an
understanding as to who is to decide who are the criminals? To-day the rich
man says to the poor man: 'If we were not here as your guardians you would
be beset by robbers who would take away from you all your possessions.' But
the rich man has all the wealth and luxury that the poor man has produced,
and whilst he claims to have protected the people from robbery he has
secured for himself the lion's share in the name of the law. Surely then it
becomes a question for the poor man which he has occasion to dread most-the
robber, who is very unlikely to take anything from him, or the law, which
allows the rich man to take all the best of that which is manufactured.
To the majority of people the criminals in society are not to be
very much dreaded even to-day, for they are for the most part people who
are at war with those who own the land and have captured all the means of
life. In a free society, where no such ownership existed, and where all
that is necessary could be obtained by all that have any need, the criminal
will always tend to die out. To-day, under our present system, he is always
tending to become more numerous.
15. It is necessary for every great town to have a drainage. Suppose
someone refuses to connect up, what would you do with him?
This objection is another of the 'supposition' class, all of which have
really been answered in dealing with question No. 1. It is based on the
unsocial man, whereas all systems of society must be organised for social
people. The truth, of course, is that in a free society the experts on
sanitation would get together and organise our drainage system, and the
people who lived in the district would be only too glad to find these
convenient arrangements made for them. But still it is possible to suppose
that somebody will not agree to this; what then will you do with him? What
do our government friends suggest?
The only thing that they can do which in our anarchist society we
would not do, is to put him in prison, for we can use all the arguments to
persuade him that they can. How much would the town gain by doing this?
Here is a description of an up-to-date prison cell into which he might be
thrown:
I slept in one of the ordinary cells, which have sliding panes, leaving at
the best two openings about six inches square. The windows are set in the
wall high up and are 3 by I l/2 or 2 feet area. Added to this they are very
dirty, so that the light in the cell is always dim. After the prisoner has
been locked in the cell all night the air is unbearable, and its
unhealthiness is increased by damp.
The 'convenience' supplied in the cell is totally inadequate, and
even if it be of a proper size and does not leak, the fact that it remains
unemptied from evening till morning is, in case of illness especially, very
insanitary and dangerous to health. 'Lavatory time' is permitted only at a
fixed hour twice a day, only one water-closet being provided for twenty
three cells. [2]
Thus we see that whilst we are going to guarantee this man being cleanly by
means of violence, we have no guarantee that the very violence itself which
we use will not be filthy.
But there is another way of looking at this question. Mr Charles
Mayl, MB (Bachelor of Medicine) of New College, Oxford, after an outbreak
of typhoid fever, was asked to examine the drainage of Windsor; he stated
that:
In a previous visitation of typhoid fever the poorest and lowest parts of
the town had entirely escaped, whilst the epidemic had been very fatal in
good houses. The difference was that whilst the better houses were all
connected with sewers the poor part of the town had not drains, but made
use of cesspools in the gardens. And this is by no means an isolated
instance.
It would not be out of place to quote Herbert Spencer here:
One part of our Sanitary Administration having insisted upon a drainage
system by which Oxford, Reading, Maidenhead, Windsor, etc, pollute the
water which Londoners have to drink, another part of our Sanitary
Administration makes loud protests against the impurity of water which he
charges with causing diseases -not remarking, however, that law-enforced
arrangements have produced the impurity.
We begin to see therefore that the man who objected to connecting
his house with the drains would probably be a man who is interested in the
subject, and who knows something about sanitation. It would be of the
utmost importance that he should be listened to and his objections removed,
instead of shutting him up in an unhealthy prison. The fact is, the rebel
is here just as important as he is in other matters, and he can only
profitably be eliminated by giving him satisfaction, not by trying to crush
him out.
As the man of the drains has only been taken as an example by our
objector, it would be interesting here to quote a similar case where the
regulations for stamping out cattle diseases were objected to by someone
who was importing cattle. In a letter to the Times, signed 'Landowner',
dated 2nd August, 1872, the writer tells how he bought 'ten fine young
steers, perfectly free from any symptom of disease, and passed sound by the
inspector of foreign stock'. Soon after their arrival in England they were
attacked by foot and mouth disease. On inquiry he found that foreign stock,
however healthy, 'mostly all go down with it after the passage'. The
government regulations for stamping out this disease were that the stock
should be driven from the steamer into the pens for a limited number of
hours. There seems therefore very little doubt that it was in this
quarantine that the healthy animals contracted the disease and spread it
among the English cattle. [3]
Every new drove of cattle is kept for hours in an infected pen. Unless the
successive droves have been all healthy (which the very institution of the
quarantine implies that they have not been) some of them have left in the
pen disease matter from their mouths and feet. Even if disinfectants are
used after each occupation, the risk is great-the disinfectant is almost
certain to be inadequate. Nay, even if the pen is adequately disinfected
every time, yet if there is not also a complete disinfection of the landing
appliances, the landing-stage and the track to the pen, the disease will be
communicated . . . The quarantine regulations . . . might properly be
called regulations for the better diffusion of cattle diseases'.
Would our objector to anarchism suggest that the man who refuses to put his
cattle in these pens should be sent to prison?
...
18. We cannot all agree and think alike and be perfect, and therefore laws
are necessary, or we shall have chaos.
It is because we cannot all agree that anarchism becomes necessary. If we
all thought alike it would not matter in the least if we had one common law
to which we must all submit. But as many of us think differently, it
becomes absurd to try to force us to act the same by means of the
government which we are silly enough to call representative.
A very important point is touched upon here. It is because
anarchists recognise the absolute necessity of allowing for this difference
among men that they are anarchists. The truth is that all progress is
accompanied by a process of differentiation, or of the increasing
difference of parts. If we take the most primitive organism we can find it
is simply a tiny globule of plasm, that is, of living substance. It is
entirely undifferentiated: that is to say, all its parts are alike. An
organism next above this in the evolutionary scale will be found to have
developed a nucleus. And now the tiny living thing is composed of two
distinctly different parts, the cell-body and its nucleus. If we went on
comparing various organisms we should find that all those of a more complex
nature were made up of clusters of these tiny organisms or cells. In the
most primitive of these clusters there would be very little difference
between one cell and another. As we get a little higher we find that
certain cells in the clusters have taken upon themselves certain duties,
and for this purpose have arranged themselves in special ways. By and by,
when we get to the higher animals, we shall find that this process has
advanced so far that some cells have grouped together to form the breathing
apparatus, that is, the lungs; others are responsible for the circulation
of the blood; others make up the nervous tissue; and so on, so that we say
they form the various 'organs' of the body. The point we have to notice is
that the higher we get in the animal or vegetable kingdom, the more
difference we find between the tiny units or cells which compose the body
or organism. Applying this argument to the social body or organism which we
call society, it is clear that the more highly developed that organism
becomes, the more different will be the units (ie the people) and organs
(ie institutions and clubs) which compose it.
(For an answer to the argument based on the supposed need of a
controlling centre for the 'social organism', see Objection No. 21.)
When, therefore, we want progress we must allow people to differ.
This is the very essential difference between the anarchists and the
governmentalists. The government is always endeavouring to make men
uniform. So literally true is this that in most countries it actually
forces them into the uniform of the soldier or the convict. Thus government
shows itself as the great reactionary tendency. The anarchist, on the other
hand, would break down this and would allow always for the development of
new ideas, new growth, and new institutions; so that society would be
responsive always to the influence of its really greatest men, and to the
surrounding influences, whatever they may be.
It would be easier to get at this argument from a simpler
standpoint. It is really quite clear that if we were all agreed, or if we
were forced to act as if we did agree, we could not have any progress
whatever. Change can take place only when someone disagrees with what is,
and with the help of a small minority succeeds in putting that disagreement
into practice. No government makes allowance for this fact, and
consequently all progress which is made has to come in spite of
governments, not by their agency.
I am tempted to touch upon yet another argument here, although I
have already given this question too much space. Let me add just one
example of the findings of modern science. Everyone knows that there is sex
relationship and sex romance in plant life just as there is in the animal
world, and it is the hasty conclusion with most of us that sex has been
evolved for the purposes of reproduction of the species. A study of the
subject, however, proves that plants were amply provided with the means of
reproduction before the first signs of sex appeared. Science then has had
to ask itself: what was the utility of sex evolution? The answer to this
conundrum it has been found lies in the fact that 'the sexual method of
reproduction multiplies variation as no other method of reproduction can.'
[4]
If I have over-elaborated this answer it is because I have wished
to interest (but by no means to satisfy) anyone who may see the importance
of the subject. A useful work is waiting to be accomplished by some
enthusiast who will study differentiation scientifically, and show the
bearing of the facts on the organisation of human society.
19. If you abolish government, you will do away with the marriage laws.
We shall.
20. How will you regulate sexual relationship and family affairs?
It is curious that sentimental people will declare that love is our
greatest attribute, and that freedom is the highest possible condition. Yet
if we propose that love shall go free they are shocked and horrified.
There is one really genuine difficulty, however, which people do
meet in regard to this question. With a very limited understanding they
look at things as they are to-day, and see all kinds of repulsive
happenings: unwanted children, husbands longing to be free from their
wives, and-there is no need to enumerate them. For all this, the sincere
thinker is able to see the marriage law is no remedy; but, on the other
hand, he sees also that the abolition of that law would also in itself be
no remedy.
This is true, no doubt. We cannot expect a well-balanced humanity
if we give freedom on one point and slavery on the remainder. The movement
towards free love is only logical and useful if it takes its place as part
of the general movement towards emancipation.
Love will only come to a normal and healthy condition when it is
set in a world without slums and poverty, and without all the incentives to
crime which exist to-day. When such a condition is reached it will be folly
to bind men and women together, or keep them apart, by laws. Liberty and
free agreement must be the basis of this most essential relationship as
surely as it must be of all others.
...
22. You can't change human nature.
To begin with, let me point out that I am a part of human nature, and by
all my own development I am contributing to and helping in the development
and modification of human nature.
If the argument is that I cannot change human nature and mould it
into any form at will, then, of course, it is quite true. If, on the other
hand, it is intended to suggest that human nature remains ever the same,
then the argument is hopelessly unsound. Change seems to be one of the
fundamental laws of existence, and especially of organic nature. Man has
developed from the lowest animals, and who can say that he has reached the
limits of his possibilities?
However, as it so happens, social reformers and revolutionists do
not so much rely on the fact that human nature will change as they do upon
the theory that the same nature will act differently under different
circumstances.
A man becomes an outlaw and a criminal to-day because he steals to
feed his family. In a free society there would be no such reason for theft,
and consequently this same criminal born into such a world might become a
respectable family man. A change for the worse? Possibly; but the point is
that it is a change. The same character acts differently under the new
circumstances.
To sum up, then:
1 Human nature does change and develop along certain lines, the
direction of which we may influence;
2 The fundamental fact is that nature acts according to the condition in
which it finds itself.
The latter part of the next answer (No. 23) will be found to apply
equally here.
23. Who would do the dirty work under anarchism?
To-day machinery is introduced to replace, as far as possible, the highly
paid man. It can only do this very partially, but it is obvious that since
machinery is to save the cost of production it will be applied to those
things where the cost is considerable. In those branches where labour is
very cheap there is not the same incentive to supersede it by machines.
Now things are so strangely organised at present that it is just
the dirty and disagreeable work that men will do cheaply, and consequently
there is no great rush to invent machines to take their place. In a free
society, on the other hand, it is clear that the disagreeable work will be
one of the first things that machinery will be called upon to eliminate. It
is quite fair to argue, therefore, that the disagreeable work will, to a
large extent, disappear in a state of anarchism.
This, however, leaves the question only partially answered. Some
time ago, during a strike at Leeds, the roadmen and scavengers refused to
do their work. The respectable inhabitants of Leeds recognised the danger
of this state of affairs, and organised themselves to do the dirty work.
University students were sweeping the streets and carrying boxes of refuse.
They answered the question better than I can. They have taught us that a
free people would recognise the necessity of such work being done, and
would one way or another organise to do it.
Let me give another example more interesting than this and widely
differing from it, thus showing how universally true is my answer.
Within civilised society probably it would be difficult to find two
classes differing more widely than the University student of to-day and the
labourer of Western Ireland nearly a hundred years ago. At Ralahine in 1830
was started the most successful of the many Co-operative or Communist
experiments for which that period was remarkable. There, on the poorest of
bog-soil, amongst 'the lowest order of Irish poor, discontented, disorderly
and vicious, and under the worst circumstances imaginable', an ideal little
experimental community was formed. Among the agreements entered into by
these practical impossibilists was one which said that 'no member be
expected to perform any service or work but such as is agreeable to his or
her feelings', yet certain it is that the disagreeable work was daily
performed. The following dialogue between a passing stage-coach passenger
and a member of the community, whom he found working in water which reached
his middle, is recorded:
'Are you working by yourself?' inquired the traveller. 'Yes', was the
answer. 'Where is your steward?' 'We have no steward.' 'Who is your
master?' 'We have no master. We are on a new system.' 'Then who sent you to
do this work?' 'The committee', replied the man in the dam. 'Who is the
committee?' asked the mail-coach visitor. 'Some of the members.' 'What
members do you mean?' 'The ploughmen and labourers who are appointed by us
as a committee. I belong to the new systemites.'
Members of this community were elected by ballot among the peasants
of Ralahine. 'There was no inequality established among them', says G. J.
Holyoake, [5] to whom I am indebted for the above description. He adds: 'It
seems incredible that this simple and reasonable form of government [6]
should supersede the government of the bludgeon and the blunderbuss-the
customary mode by which Irish labourers of that day regulated their
industrial affairs. Yet peace and prosperity prevailed through an
arrangement of equity.'
The community was successful for three and a half years, and then
its end was brought about by causes entirely external. The man who had
given his land up for the purposes of the experiment lost his money by
gambling, and the colony of 618 acres had to be forfeited. This example of
the introduction of a new system among such unpromising circumstances might
well have been used in answer to Objection No. 22 -'You can't change human
nature'.
1. J. S. Mill, Political Economy Vol. I, p.251.
2. Women end Prisons Fabian Tract No. 16.
3. The typhoid and the cattle disease cases are both quoted in the notes to
Herbert Spencer's The Study of Sociology.
4. The Evolution of Sex in Plants by Professor J. Merle Coulter. It is
interesting to add that he closes his book with these words: 'Its
[sexuality's] significance lies in the fact that it makes organic evolution
more rapid and far more varied. '
5. History of Co-operation.
6. I need not, I think, stay to explain the sense in which this word is
used. The committee were workers, not specialised advisers; above all, they
had no authority and could only suggest and not issue orders. They were,
therefore, not a Government.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- Technology and Anarchy -
Some anachists, such as "anarcho-primitivists", denounce technology as
slavery. I firmly believe that technology - using tools to improve quality of
life - is a basic characteristic of all human beings. While we must not
completely rely on technology and government-funded research for survival,
technology and its advancement are important parts of any society. Government
is not responsible for scientific advancement. Almost all of the great
historical scientific discoveries were made without the "benefit" of government
grants. Government funding only allows scientists to be exploited and made to
do science to suit the state's purposes. Science should be done for the good
of humanity, not the good of the government - you can always depend on
government to find a way to make a weapon out of any new technology. When
resources are readily accessible to everyone, technology will be free to
advance as rapidly as it does now.
~ The Case For Anarchism ~
To prove a need for change, one must prove that a problem exists with
the status quo, that the problem is inherent in the status quo, that the harm
is sufficient to cause concern, and that the proposed change will solve the
problem and eliminate the harm. In the following paragraphs I will show that a
change to anarchy is preferable to the status quo: coercion.
- The Problem Exists -
There are many problems with government as a foundation of society.
Aside from coercion being unethical, there are many practical reasons why
anarchy will work better.
#1: Power corrupts. Anyone put in a position of power is highly likely
to use that power to use that power to their own ends, and will not be able to
fairly represent the interests of everyone that he or she is supposed to
"represent".
#2: The majority does not necessarily know better than the minority.
Truth does not change simply because 51% of the people think differently. The
majority, who simply think along with the most popular opinion of the day,
cannot possibly be placed in charge and expected to look after the rights of
the minority. The only way everyone's rights can be protected is if every
person is his or her own government, and be restrained only by conscience and
reason. We are perfectly capable of making our own conscious choices, and have
our decisions made for us by someone else. In this age we have been
conditioned to blindly accept coercion as the only way of life.
#3: The class system restrains the rights of indivisuals by forcing
them into positions in society that they may not be best suited for. Someone
who is born into the working class will, in all likelyhood, do no better than
their parents. People born into the upper class can afford to do no work at
all while depending upon the exploitation of the working class to support them.
#4: Capitalism is a zero-sum game. Capitalism is a pyramid sceme,
based on the assumption that property accumulated by the rich will "trickle
down", eventually reaching the even the poorest citizen. it is also based on
the assumption that people are by nature competitive, and that a community will
be better off if everyone is continually fighting everyone else and no one
cares about anyone but him or her self. This is about as foolish as putting
thirty people into a locked room with thirty baseball bats and telling them
that to "win", they have to hit everyone else harder than they get hit. It
won't take them long to realize that they would really all win if no one hit
anyone else at all: if they cooperate rather than compete. Capitalism assumes
that for one person to be happy (by a capitalist definition, read: rich and
powerful), someone else must be made miserable (read: poor and powerless). For
the anarchist, happiness does not come from having the most money (dollars,
gold, cattle) or having the most control over others. In an anarchist society,
no one has to be stepped on in order for everyone to profit. In a capitalist
society, everyone does as little work as they possibly can - time is money,
after all. An anarchist society, in which everyone is equal and no one can
profit from the slavery of others, would be much more efficient.
#5. Government is a wasteful bureaucracy. Government and the ruling
class waste the products of the working class's labor, through taxes,
enforcement of unnecessary laws, and the rich living in luxury while the poor
suffer. The American government pays social security to old rich people, while
young poor children are dying on the streets of easily treatable illnesses.
#6. Supply/demand economics doesn't work. The pyramid scheme must
eventually collapse. If capitalism works, then why are there people struggling
to earn or steal enough to buy enough shoes for all of their children when shoe
store owners are complaining that they can't sell enough shoes?
#7. Government creates crime. The government prohibits, and
prohibition creates crime. The status quo creates poverty and poverty creates
crime. The government artificially increases the prices of drugs by
criminalizing them. As Emma Goldman said, "The most absurd apology for
authority and law is that they serve to diminish crime. Aside from the fact
that the state itself is the greatest criminal, breaking every written and
natural law, stealing in the form of taxes, killing in the form of war and
capital punishment, it has come to an absolute standstill in coping with crime.
It has failed utterly to destroy or even minimize the terrible scourge of its
own creation." The government only protects those in control, and cares little
about the lower classes. Do you feel that you are protected when you walk
through the streets in the "bad" part of town? The government places little
value in the poor and inner-city youth.
There is harm in the status quo, and certainly they are enough to cause
concern. Society is degrading every day because of classism, racism, ageism,
sexism, and innumerable other -isms. Every day, the government seizes more
power, supposedly for our own protection. We don't need to be protected from
ourselves and we don't need to be protected from each other.
- The Problem Is Inherent -
These problems are inherent in any system based on coercion or
competition. They cannot be solved within the present system, partly because
of people's attitudes and partly because of the structure of authoritarian
government itself.
#1. Power is always corruptive, no matter if the power is in the hands
of a dictator, a congress, or a majority.
#2. While we agree that the majority does not have any more right to
rule than the minority, a system of minority rule would still by tyranny. No
individual or group should be given the right to control any other.
#3. The class system does not have to be imposed directly. Under a
capitalist, democratic, "free" society, classes are imposed more subtly, by
allowing certain people to accumulate more property than others and allowing
them to use it to exploit the rest of the people.
#4. Not just capitalism, but any money economy is based on the passing
around of a fixed amount of money. Even if the value of a country's monetary
unit gains value, that money is coming from somewhere. Specifically, the money
is either coming from other countries or people are doing more work for less
money. Any time anyone makes money, they are indirectly taking it away from
someone else.
#5. All governments require the expenditure of wealth to operate: to
feed their armies, to build killing machines, and to hire police to control
their citizens and extort money from them. In an anarchist society, the
workers get to reap all the benefits of their labor, without their employers
and government taking it away from them.
#6. Poverty is a problem in every country. In an anarchist community,
people would trade freely with each other and with the local shoe-makers, and
every person would have everything he or she needs. When money and the
accumulation of property have been abolished, so too will poverty.
#7. Crime is created by government because all authority causes us to
substitute laws for ethics and act only according to what is legal rather than
what is acceptable by our conscience.
- Anarchy Will Solve the Problem -
Will anarchy solve these problems? Yes. Power will not be corruptive
because power will not exist. Neither the majority nor the minority will rule
because each person will govern themselves. Class will finally be eliminated
forever, and equality will finally be realized. Political and economic slavery
will be abolished. A capitalist society would not simply spring up again
because the only people who would want to become members of such a society are
the rich, and a capitalist society depends on the exploitation of the working
class for its survival. Poverty would be resolved. There are enough goods to
go around; the problem not is that the upper 1% of households control more of
it than the lower 90%. In an anarchist society, people would not have to be
exploited in order for people to profit and society to advance. Voluntary
association and mutual aid are certainly preferable to force. Humanity's full
potential may finally be realized if we only stop fighting each other and
trying to control one another. Anarchy will solve the problems of the status
quo, eliminate the harm, and open up immeasurable possibilities.
~ The History of Anarchism ~
The rejection of authority dates back to the Stoics and Cynics, and
has been around for millenia. However, the terms anarchist, anarchism, and
anarchy, from the Greek "an archos" (without a rule), were used entirely in a
negative manner before the nineteenth century.
- Proudhon and the Mutualists -
In 1840, in his controversial "What Is Property", French political
writer and socialist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon became the first person to call
himself an anarchist. In this book, Proudhon stated that the real laws of
society have nothing to do with authority, but stem instead from the nature of
society itself. He also predicted the eventual dissolve of authority and the
appearence of a natural social order. "As man seeks justice in equality, so
society seeks justice in anarchy. Anarchy - the absence of a sovereign - such
is the form of government to which we are every day approximating." He was a
'peaceful anarchist'; he believed that within existing society, the
organizations could be created that would eventually replace it. Proudhon was
born in 1809, originally a peasant, the son of a brewer. His "What Is Property"
and "System of Economic Contradictions" established him in the socialist
community. Later he went on to write "The Federal Principle" and "The
Political Capability of the Working Class".
Although he declared in "What Is Property" that "property is theft",
he did not support communism, and regarded the right of workers to control the
means of production as an important part of freedom. He never considered
himself the originator of a movement, but he did propose a federal system of
autonomous communes. He had many followers, but they preferred the title
'Mutualists' to 'Anarchists'; anarchism still bore a negative connotation.
Proudhon and the Mutualists, along with British tradeunionists and socialists,
formed the First International Workingmen's Association.
- Bakunin and Collectivism -
"The passion for destruction is also a creative passion" - These words
would accurately summarize the position of Mikail Bakunin and the
Collectivists. Bakunin believed that anarchy was only possible through a
violent revolution, obliterating all existing institutions. He was originally
a nobleman, but became a revolutionary and joined the International in the
1860's, after founding the Social Democratic Alliance and modifying Proudhon's
teachings into a new doctrine known as Collectivism. Bakunin taught that
property rights were impractical and that the means of production should be
owned collectively. He was strongly opposed to Karl Marx, also a member of
the International, and his ideas of a proletarian dictatorship. This conlict
eventually tore the International apart in 1872. He died in 1876, but the
next International that he and the Collectivists started in 1873 lasted for
another year. Later, his followers finally accepted the title of 'anarchist'.
- Peter Kropotkin -
In 1876, when he became a revolutionary, Peter Kropotkin renounced his
title of Prince and became successor to Mikail Bakunin. He developed the
theory of anarchist communism: not only should the means of production be owned
collectively, but the products should be completely communized as well. This
revised Thomas More's Utopian idea of storehouses, "From each according to his
means, to each according to his needs." Kropotkin wrote "The Conquest of
Bread" in 1892, in which he sketched his vision of a federation of free
Communist groups. In 1899 he wrote "Memoirs of a Revolutionist", an
autobiographical work, and "Fields, Factories, and Workshops", which put
forward ideas on the decentralization of industry necessary for an anarchist
society. He later proved by biological and sociological evidence that
cooperation is more natural than coercion ("Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution"
- 1902). Kropotkin's writings completed the vision of the Anarchist future,
and little new has been added since.
- The Anarchist Movement -
Even before Proudhon entered the scene, anarchist activism was going
on. The first plans for an anarchist commonwealth were made by an Englishman
named Gerrard Winstanley, who founded the tiny Digger movement. In his 1649
pamphlet, "Truth Lifting Up Its Head Above Scandals", he wrote that power
corrupts, that property is incompatible with freedom, and that men can only be
free and happy in a society without governmental interference, where work and
its products are shared (what was to become the foundation for anarchist
theory in the years to come). He led a group of followers to a hillside where
they established an anarchist village, but this experiment was quickly
destroyed by local opposition. Later another Englishman, William Godwin,
would write 'Political Justice', which said that authority was against nature,
and that social evils exist because men are not free to act according to
reason.
Among Italian anarchists, an active attitude was prevalent. Said
Errico Malatesta in 1876, "The insurrectionary deed, destined to affirm
socialist principles by acts, is the most efficacious means of propaganda."
The first acts were rural insurrections, meant to arouse the uneducated
citizens of the Italian countryside, but these were unsuccessful. Afterward
this activism tended to take the form of individual acts of protest by
'terrorists', who attempted to assassinate ruling figures in the hope of
demonstrating the vulnerability of the structure of authority and inspiring
others by their self-sacrifice. From 1890- 1901, a chain of assassinations
took place: King Umberto I, Italy; Empress Elizabeth, Austria; President
Carnot, France; President McKinley, United Stated; and Spanish Prime Minister
Antonio C novas del Castillo. Unfortunately, these acts had the opposite
effect of what was intended- they established the idea of the anarchist as a
mindless destroyer.
Also during the 1890's, many French painters, writers, and other
artists discovered anarchism, and were attracted to it because of its
individualist ideas. In England, writer Oscar Wilde became an anarchist, and
in 1891 wrote "The Soul of Man Under Socialism".
Anarchism was a strong movement Spain. The first anarchist journal,
"El Porvenir", was published in 1845, but was quickly silenced. Branches of
the International were established by Guiseppe Fanelli in Barcelona and
Madrid. By 1870, there were over 40,000 Spanish anarchists members; by 1873,
60,000, mostly organized in workingmen's associations, but in 1874 the
movement was forced underground. In the 1880's and '90's, the Spanish
anarchist movement tended toward terrorism and insurrections.
The Spanish civil war was the perfect opportunity to finally put ideas
into action on a large scale. Factories and railways were taken over. In
Andalusia, Catalonia, and Levante, peasents seized the land. Autonomous
libertarian villages were set up, like those described in Kropotkin's 'The
Conquest of Bread'. Internal use of money was abolished, the land was tilled
collectively, the village products were sold or exchanged on behalf of the
entire community, and each family recieved an equal share of necessities they
could not produce themselves. Many of these such communes were even more
efficient than the other villages. Although the Spanish anarchists failed
because they did not have the ability to carry out sustained warfare, they
succeeded in inspiring many and showing that anarchy can work efficiently.
Although two of the greatest anarchist leaders, Bakunin and Kropotkin,
were Russian, totalitarian censorship managed to supress most of the movement,
and it was never very strong in Russia. Only one revolutionary, N.I. Makhno, a
peasant, managed to raise an insurrectionary army and, by brilliant guerilla
tactics, took temporary control of a large part of the Ukraine from both Red
and White armies. His exile in 1921 marked the death of the anarchist
movement in Russia.
Throughout American history, there has been a tradition of both
violent and pacifist anarchism. Henry David Thoreau, a nonviolent Anarchist
writer, and Emma Goldman, an anarchist activist, are a couple of examples.
activist anarchism, however, was mainly sustained by immigrants from Europe.
In the late 1800's, anarchism was a part of life for many. In 1886, four
anarchists were wrongfully executed for alleged involvement in the Haymarket
bombing, in which seven policemen were killed. President McKinley was
assassinated in 1901 by Leon Czolgosz, a Polish Anarchist.
Especially since 1917, anarchism has appealed to intellectuals. In
1932, Aldous Huxley wrote "Brave New World", which warned of a mindless,
materialistic existence a modernized society could produce, and in the
'Foreword' of the 1946 edition, he said that he believed that only through
radical decentralization and a politics that was "Kropotkinesque and
cooperative" could the dangers of modern society be escaped. After World War
][, anarchist groups reappeared in almost all countries where they had once
existed, excepting Spain and the Soviet Union. In the 1970's, anarchism drew
much attention and interest, and rebellious students often started collectives.
Still published is a monthly British publication, called "Anarchy", which
applies anarchist principles to modern life.
Anarchism, although often mistakenly thought of a violent and
destructive, is not that at all. Anarchists, though some may advocate a
swift and violent revolution, envision a peaceful and harmonious society,
based on a natural order rather than an artificial system based on coercion.
~ Anarchy As a Way of Life ~
At first glance, you'd expect that people living in a society would be
happier if they agreed with the way they were being governed. Quite the
opposite is actually true, however - anarchists refuse to let the state get
them down. To prepare for the revolution, which can only be by changing
popular opinion, we must live anarchy every day.
We must remain committed to our ideals no matter what the
circumstances. Every time you laugh at a discriminatory joke, every time you
don't speak up when you should - you contribute to the problem.
Intellectual freedom - the freedom to think for one's self - is one of
the foundations for other freedoms. Freedom of expression is integral to art
and creativity. Anarchists should oppose the idea of intellectual property and
copyrights, as these only block the free flow of information. Express yourself
freely and don't copyright your work.
No one, least of all government, has any right to control you. Show
the anarchist spirit in your attitude and actions. Perhaps most importantly,
don't follow the crowd. Be yourself.
- Civil Disobedience -
Many laws are around todat because no one will stand up and break them
and say, "this law is unjust!" Practice civil disobedience in your daily life;
don't let the government's arbitrarily defined guidelines confine you.
- D-I-Y -
Do-it-yourself rather than relying on government or large corporations
whenever possible. If you are a musician, consider recording independently.
If you are a writer, consider publishing independently and not copyrighting
your work.
~ Modern Anarchist Activism ~
- Direct Action -
Anarchists, for the most part, are opposed to voting. Not only are
you, by voting, agreeing to having someone make your decisions for you, but you
are contributing to the illusion that voting actually makes a difference. The
best way to effect real change is by direct action. Direct action may take the
form of strikes, protests... anything that directly fights coercion. To quote
the I.W.W.: "It [the General Strike] debunks the myth that power flows
downward, and proves instead that all teal power still resides at the
grassroots level, if we only choose to excersize it."
Anarchists are often present at political marches and protests. The
gay/lesbian march for equal rights in Washington, D.C. drew about a hundred
marching with the anarchist contingent.
The I.W.W., an anti-capitalist labor union, supports sabotage in the
workplace - not necessarily destructivem just a concious slowing down of
production.
The most direct for of direct action is shown in clinic defense (the
protection of women's clinics from anti-choice groups such as "Operation
Rescue") - actually, physicalls fighting coercion.
Food Not Bombs is another direct action group working for rights for
the poor in San Francisco. They distribute free, hot, vegetarian meals to the
homeless, and many of them were arrested because they had no permit (when in
fact it would have been impossible for them to get a permit in the first
place). Propositions have been introduced that would make Food Not Bombs
illegal. In October 1993, a ruling was made that allowed FNB to continue
distributing free food, but the individual charges against the members were not
dropped.
- Propaganda -
Propaganda is an important part of anarchist activism. Some anarchists
believe that a revolution now would be pointless - people today have been so
indoctrinated with authoritarian dogmas that a revolution now really would
cause chaos. A revolution can only take place when a significant portion of
the population are tired of being told what to do and decide that they aren't
going to obey the government anymore. As Bakunin said, "The end justifies the
means, but the means determine the end." An anarchist revolution must be by
the people and not by a vanguard. Others believe that freedom is a
precondition for the development of the maturity necessary for freedom. Either
way, one of the most revolutionary things we can do right now is to encourage
people to think for themselves. Posters, flyers, and articles about anarchism
help to spread the word and get people thinking. Effective flyers get the
point across as quickly as possible, but allow the reader to come to his/her
own conclusions, without forcing ideas on anyone. Here is the text of a
general purpose anarchist flyer I put together.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Are you a patriotic American?
Do you believe in the "American Way"?
Just what is the "American Way?" America supposely represents
freedom and equality. Patriots continually praise the American system for
giving rights to everyone. The fact is that basic human rights are the same
whether we have a government or not. All governments can do is try to take
rights away from us.
- The "American Way" -
What is free about democracy? Why should 51% of the people, who have
been almost completely brainwashed by the power elite, get to impose
their will on the remaining 49%, and have their views enforced by police and
the military? Truth is not dependent on whether or not the majority agrees
with it. To wish to think along with the majority, simply because the majority is the
majority, only proves that one is unable think for oneself. Democracy has been
compared to two wolves and a sheep trying to decide what's going to be for
dinner. It would be more accurate to compare it to two wolves, a sheep, a
bird, and a fish. The sheep can form a coalition with the fish and the bird to
beat the wolves, but there's really no reason they should all be eating the
same thing in the first place. Democracy is a way of giving citizens the
illusion that they have control while opressing them behind their backs.
- Class Struggle -
What does free market capitalism have to do with equality? "Free"
indeed. Capitalism is just as tyrannical as feudalism. Some ninty thousand
hours of your life will be sold to someone else - to someone who has
accumulated more wealth and property than you have and will use it to exploit
you every chance he/she gets. The working class does all the work and the
upper class profits. A member of the poorer class is only trying to survive,
while a member of the working class spends all of his/her time trying to become
a member of the upper class, so that s/he can in turn exploit his/her fellow
workers. All of this is presented to you as equality. If you still insist
that we are equal under democracy and capitalism, ask yourself: when was the
last time we had a poor president? A poor governor? A mayor? The reason for
this is that only the rich have the money to do the extensive campaigning
necessary to win an election, and many make a career out of politics. What's
more, the rich control the media, and have a great influence over the ideas of
the masses. If you don't think there is a definite ruling class in America,
think again.
- Where To From Here? -
What is the answer? Socialism? Communism? The problems of America are
the same problems that are inherent in any government system based on coercion
and enforcement by police. Simply put, power corrupts. No person should have
control over any other person. The solution is a completely new society, based
on mutual aid, cooperation, and voluntary association, rather than force and
government authority. Peaceful cooperation can only exist when people are free
to act according to reason - according to ethics instead of laws. Crime exists
only because the government prohibits. For example, how many thousands of
robberies, shootings, and deaths each year would be prevented if drugs were
legalized, normalizing their artificially inflated prices? The state is the
greatest criminal of all, violating our individual liberty by stealing in the
form of taxes and property seizures, and murdering in the form of execution and
war. Despite this fact, government has come to a complete standstill in coping
with crime. We don't need a government to protect us from ourselves and we
don't need a government to protect us from each other. Government is a
completely artificial institution which restricts human interaction.
- What You Can Do To Help -
We're not ready for a revolution yet. People have grown too accustommed
to having their decisions made for them. They don't know how to live without
government intervention. Government restrictions have caused them to
substitute laws for ethics. They've lost the ability to make their own
choices. The most revolutionary thing we can do right now is to encourage
people to think for themselves. Get involved. We are a Dallas-based group of
anarchists who want to get the word out and get people involved. If you want
to learn more or recieve anarchist literature by mail, write to:
Digital Revolution
11111-A N. Central Expwy
Dallas, TX 75243
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- Anarchist Networking -
Unity among anarchists is not often emphasized because to unite, we
must, to some extent, sacrifice our individuality. There are, however, many
anarchist gatherings every year. To organize and exchange ideas, anarchists
must form loose connections through networks rather than getting involved in
hierarchical organizations. Some anarchists form collectives; others are just
part of affinity groups - small, non-hierarchical groups of individuals with
common interests.
The Zine Network
Zines are small, low-budget, independently published magazines.
Anarchist zines are usually specifically anti-copyright, to encourage
rprinting of articles. A lot of information gets traded around the global
anarchist community in this way. What makes the zine network so unique is that
you can't really tell the average zine editor from the average zine reader.
Anyone with time and a copier can do a zine.
Electronic Networking
Another useful tool for networking is the telecommunications network. With
only a few hundred dollars worth of computer equipment, anyone can tap into
immeasurable online resources. Electronic publishers can "print" zines in
text-file format without any costs for paper and stamps. Almost all electronic
magazines are free, since it is virtually impossible to curb their
distribution. There are also file transfer sites, such as SPUNK Press, which
are directly connected to the internet, and provide archives of electronic
magazines, articles, essays by anarchist writers, and even scanned-in books.
If you have an internet email account, you can subscribe to mailing lists,
which send all submissions to all subscribed accounts. Users who can get
usenet also probably have access to such newsgroups as alt.society.anarchy and
alt.society.revolution.
~ Conclusion ~
We're sick and tired of being pushed around by the ruling class. If
you want to get involved and start taking action to end coercion, see the
appendices for information and addresses useful to get connected with other
anarchists across the country and across the world.
~ Appendix 1 ~
- Anarchist Periodicals -
Anarchy / POBox 1446 / Columbia, MO 65205-1446
Anti-Power / 1961 Pike Place #12-367 / Seattle, WA 98101
Bayou La Rose / POBox 5464 / Tacoma, WA 98415-0464
Beyond the Wall of Injustice / POBox 6188 / Fullerton, CA 92634
Class War / POBox 1021 / Edinburgh EH8 9PW / Scotland Britain
Fifth Estate / 4632 Second Ave. / Detroit, MI 48201
Free Society / POBox 7293 / Minneapolis, MN 55407
Green Anarchist / POBox H / 34 Crowley Rd. / Oxford OX4 1HZ / U.K.
Infinite Onion / POBox 263 / Colorado Springs, CO 80901-0263
Kaboom! / POBox 4472 / Long Beach, CA 90804-0472
Libertarian Labor Review / POBox 2824 / Champaign, IL 61825
Love and Rage / POBox 3 / Prince St. Station / New York, NY 10012
Madworld Survival Guide / POBox 791377 / New Orleans, LA 70179
Plain Words / POBox 832 / Haledon, NJ 0780-832
Practical Anarchy / POBox 173 / Madison, WI 3701-0173
Profane Existence / POBox 8722 / Minneapolis, MN 55408
Slingshot / 700 Eshleman Hall / Berkeley, CA 94720
Wind Chill Factor / POBox 2824 / Champaign, IL 60681
Workers' Solidarity / POBox 40400 / San Francisco, CA 94140
[Taken from Anarchism Everywhere: a contact list for the
revolutionary community, from the United Anarchist Front.]
~ Appendix 2 ~
- Anarchist Organizations -
Amor y Rabia Apartado Postal / 11-351 C.P. / 06101 Mexico D.F. / Mexico
Anarchist Black Cross / POBox ABC / 121 Raiton Rd. / London, SE24 OLR UK
Anarchist Youth Federation / POBox 365 / New York, NY 10013-0365
AWOL / POBox 7293 / Minneapolis, MN / 55407
Bloomington Anarchist Union / POBox 3207 / Bloomington, IN 47042
The Germinal UCSD Student Coop Center / B-0323-Z / La Jolla, CA 92093
Impulse / Route 1 / Redwing, MN 55066
Midwest Eco-Anarchist Network/ POBox 7511 / Minneapolis, MN 55407
Neither East nor West / 528 5th St. / Brooklyn, NY 11215
Patterson Anarchist Collective / POBox 8532 Haledon, NJ 07508
United Anarchist Front / POBox 1115 / Whittier, CA 90609
United Anarchist Front / POBox 3941 / Fullerton, CA 92634
The Web Collective / POBox 40890 / San Francisco, CA 94117
Worker's Solidarity Alliance / 339 Lafayette St. Rm 202 / New York, NY 10012
[Taken from Anarchism Everywhere: a contact list for the
revolutionary community, from the United Anarchist Front.]
~ Appendix 3 ~
- Anarchist Publishing and Distribution -
AK Distribution / 3 Balmoral Place / Stirling FK8 2RD / Scotland
Anarchist Archives Project / POBox 1323 / Cambridge, MA 02238
@ Distribution / POBox 021835 / Brooklyn, NY 11012
Anok and Peace Collective / 3332 Peachtree Place / Lima, OH 45805
Bound Together Books / 1369 Haight St. / San Francisco, CA 94117
Collective Chaos Distribution / POBox 819